Exploring Organizational Communication (Micro) History ...

Marquette Universitye-Publications@MarquetteCollege of Communication Faculty Research andPublications Communication, College of

6-1-2016

Exploring Organizational Communication (Micro)History Through Network ConnectionsScott C. D'UrsoMarquette University, [email protected]

Jeremy P. FykeMarquette University, [email protected]

David H. TorresMarquette University

Accepted version. Review of Communication, Vol. 14, No. 2 (2014): 89-106. DOI. © 2014 Taylor &Francis. Used with permission.

https://epublications.marquette.edu

https://epublications.marquette.edu/comm_fac

https://epublications.marquette.edu/comm_fac

https://epublications.marquette.edu/communication

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15358593.2014.944871

NOT THE PUBLISHED VERSION; this is the author’s final, peer-reviewed manuscript. The published version may be accessed by following the link in the citation at the bottom of the page.

Review of Communication, Vol. 14, No. 2 (2014): pg. 89-106. DOI. This article is © Taylor & Francis (Routledge) and permission has been granted for this version to appear in e-Publications@Marquette. Taylor & Francis (Routledge) does not grant permission for this article to be further copied/distributed or hosted elsewhere without the express permission from Taylor & Francis (Routledge).

1

Exploring Organizational

Communication (Micro) History

through Network Connections

Scott C. D’Urso Marquette University

Milwaukee, WI

Jeremey P. Fyke Marquette University

Milwaukee, WI

David H. Torres Marquette University

Milwaukee, WI

Abstract:

In light of the 100th anniversary of the National Communication

Association, the following essay offers an initial look at the communication

sub-discipline of organizational communication and its development over the

past seven-plus decades. As part of this review, we advocate for the use of

network methods as a microhistory analytic tool to explore the vast number

of connections, both between people and research interests, generated as the

discipline developed from its humble beginnings. This work represents a small

sample of the greater Organizational Communication Genealogy Project. This

larger effort seeks to create a detailed review of the discipline as it explores

the relationships between advisors and advisees, the development of

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15358593.2014.944871

http://epublications.marquette.edu/



2

dissertation and current research topics, the collaborative network of co-

authorship, and the contributions of individual scholars through the analysis

of interview data, narratives, and historical documents.

The field of organizational communication enjoys a rich tradition

dating back to the 1940s- 50s, and its founding father W. Charles

Redding. Over the past seven plus decades our interests as a field

have developed to include business/industrial communication and

presentational skills near the beginning to foundational understandings

informed by interpretivism1. More recently, scholarship has widened

the scope to view organizations as discursive constructions2,

constituted by communication3, and explore the impact of various

human and nonhuman actors on organizations and organizing4. Over

time, various efforts have attempted to trace the contours of the field

and lay out future directions5, including a 2011 special issue of

Management Communication Quarterly (volume 25, issue four), and

most recently in The Routledge Handbook of Language of Professional

Communication6. Right now, we write at an exciting time for

organizational communication studies, on the heels of the release of

The Sage Handbook of Organizational Communication7 and the 100th

anniversary of the establishment of the National Communication

Association (NCA). The current essay extends these earlier efforts by

showcasing the first network data-driven historical analysis of the field

of organizational communication.

This essay is part of a multi-year, multi-method study using

network methods to map out the field of organizational

communication. Tracing the field back to its origins8, two of the most

influential publications that employed the precise phrasing

“organizational communication” were in fact network studies. Thus,

our approach is a fitting way to reflect back on the field. This method

allows us to visually represent the discipline, and thus discuss trends

and relationships in nuanced ways. Network methods have been used

to study disciplines as they offer a way to explore diverse things such

as citation patterns, journal selection, topics, editor decisions, and

collaborations and thought leaders9. The larger Organizational

Communication Genealogy Project (OCGP) affords a look into the

development of ideas and research areas, as well as the growth and

diversity of scholars in the field. In any field, people and projects are

key influences as we determine our interests and niche10; our effort

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15358593.2014.944871




3

provides a unique and first look at these influences. In line with these

broad aims, the current essay offers a slice of the larger picture

gleaned from our ongoing project as part of NCA’s 100th anniversary

celebration. Specifically, we track the field through the advisor-advisee

dyad, dissertation and ongoing research topics, and key scholars in the

field.

Our primary goal is to orient the field to the potential of the data

by providing the rationale for and benefits of utilizing network methods

to explore our field, and to highlight a portion of the discipline’s

microhistory. To accomplish this, we first describe the network

approach and methods that ground our overall project. Then, we

present exemplars of this research, including network images and

descriptions for each of the areas listed above. In each of the

exemplar sections, we end with a series of data-driven questions to

reflect on our preliminary findings and future analysis. These questions

lay the groundwork and help articulate a research agenda for scholars

generally and our genealogy project specifically. We conclude by

detailing the implications of the current essay and larger genealogy

project by posing overarching, macro- level questions that future

analyses will explore.

Networks as Analytic Tool

Network methods have been used for some time to enrich our

understandings of various sociocultural processes. Although scholars

have been interested in networks for more than two centuries, studies

increased in areas of communication and organizations at the turn of

the last century11. The study of organizations from a network

perspective owes much to the tradition established at Michigan State

University where scholars investigated topics such as communication

channels and small group decision making12.

Beyond understanding specific topics and processes, network

methods also afford a comprehensive macro-level assessment of a

discipline. One of the largest such projects is The Mathematics

Genealogy Project

(http://genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu/index.php), hosted by North

Dakota State University, which explores that discipline’s history

through the connections of its scholars over time. Their database,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15358593.2014.944871


http://genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu/index.php)



4

established in 1997, includes more than 181,000 records spanning

centuries, and includes data on advisors, academic descendants, and

dissertation topics. In many ways, we attempted to model our project

after this effort. Additionally, scholars have used networks to explore

the history of English13, international relations14, Marketing15, and

management and organization studies16. In line with the current

study’s aims, research demonstrates that networks can be used to

discover a field’s “peculiarities” in terms of why authors collaborate,

lineages between authors, and how collaboration affects and is

affected by journal outlet selection.17 Furthermore, network methods

focusing on keywords and authors can be used to assess the

coherence or dividedness of a discipline in terms of methods and topics

of study18.

For our project, we examine both global and individual network

characteristics present in the discipline. For this manuscript, we

highlight a few of these characteristics (see Table 1) when examining

the collaborative network exemplar. For the overall project, these tools

will allow us to identify key individuals responsible for the growth of

our field in terms of advising new Ph.D.s, as well as those individuals

who are prominent in the collaborative publication efforts in the

discipline.

Methods

The data for the OCGP project has been and will be gathered in

many ways. Initially, we were relying on a survey questionnaire

(http://www.marquette.edu/genealogy-form/), which allowed

participants to directly submit data. Currently, we are collecting CVs of

scholars not in the database, both living and deceased. Additionally,

we are collecting qualitative data in the forms of narratives,

interviews, and focus groups with prominent scholars in the discipline.

Future data collection will involve site visits to several key institutions

to examine archival data. One such example (see Figure 1) is an early

CV from Fredric M. Jablin when he was an assistant professor at the

University of Texas. Additionally, we have acquired archival data, in

the form of records from the International Communication

Insert Table 1 Approximately Here19

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15358593.2014.944871


http://www.marquette.edu/genealogy-form/)



5

Association’s (ICA) Organizational Communication Division, mid-1960s

newsletters from the former Business and Professional Speaking

Interest Group that was a part of what has become NCA, as well as

access to a significant portion of W. Charles Redding’s personal files

from Purdue University.

To date 127 participants have provided data, primarily through

the genealogy survey, but some by sending a copy of their CV.

Recruitment for this project unfolded in several steps. Recruitment not

only served pragmatic, data collection purposes, but also allowed us to

draw at least a preliminary boundary for our study. Invitations were

sent out through ICA and NCA email listservs to individuals affiliated

with the organizational communication division. These two listservs

alone allowed us to reach 1700 individuals. Our project was also

announced at the NCA conference, at the Organizational

Communication Mini-Conference (OCMC) in 2012, and at ICA in 2013,

with preliminary results presented at OCMC 2013. Boundary

management for our project was challenging given the

interdisciplinarity of communication and organizational communication

specifically, but these listservs and conference affiliations gave us a

starting point. With a participation rate of less than 8% of the

population, we are taking a more proactive approach to collecting

genealogical data by gathering CVs from ICA and NCA Organizational

Communication members. Additionally, we are sending out personal

invitations for narratives and interviews with influential scholars.

Despite the low participation rate, survey data collection

resulted in 392 genealogy network participants and 299 collaboration

network participants. To examine this preliminary data, we analyzed

the genealogical data relevant to the advisor-advisee relationship. The

data was examined utilizing UCINET20 and NetDraw21 to visualize

participant connections. Additionally, top dissertation and current

research interest keywords were also assessed. Finally, UCINET and

NetDraw were used to both visualize the network, and to also assess

key individual network characteristics relevant to the study of co-

authorship in the discipline.

Insert Figure 1 Approximately Here

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15358593.2014.944871




6

Given what network analysis can accomplish, this methodology

aligns well with our goals in this project. As Miller aptly describes

“[t]he path taken by the field of organizational communication gets

more complex every day with lots of side paths and

meandering”22.What follows is a visual rendering of such meandering,

followed by our interpretations and pressing questions that will guide

the future of the project.

Genealogy Project Exemplars

Genealogical Lines

As this project began with an idea to trace the genealogical

history of the discipline of organizational communication, this is where

the bulk of the initial work has gone. Knowing one’s place in history

can be an enlightening endeavor. With 127 participants in the

database thus far, who in turn are connected to nearly 250 more

scholars, we have begun piecing together our genealogical past. What

does this look like? Figure 2 provides a glimpse into one small portion

of this history through four generations of organizational

communication scholars. It begins with Ernest Bormann, the late

rhetorician and prominent communication scholar from the University

of Minnesota. While not an organizational communication scholar, his

interest in rhetorical analysis and aspects of group communication hint

at some of the research his academic descendants would thrive upon.

Arguably one of his most successful students and scholars, Linda L.

Putnam, currently the chair of the Department of Communication at

the University of California, Santa Barbara, has gone on to make

immeasurable contributions to the field, both in terms of knowledge

(over 140 publications to date), but in service (former International

Communication Association (ICA) president) and teaching as well

(numerous awards and recognitions). She was recognized for these

contributions with the 1993 ICA Fredric M. Jablin Award. Beyond these

contributions, impact can be assessed through fecundity—the number

of protégés a mentor trains23. Putnam has been the chair or co-chair

to 16 students who went on to earn their Ph.D.’s in the field. While this

would be significant enough, several of Putnam’s former advisees have

also made their mark on our discipline at top tier programs such as the

Université de Montréal, University of Colorado Boulder, DePaul

University, and Arizona State University.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15358593.2014.944871




7

One of the most prominent and prolific former Putnam students

is Patrice Buzzanell (Purdue University), the 1988 W. Charles Redding

Dissertation of the Year winner and 1994 Fredric M. Jablin Award

winner. She is a productive and distinguished scholar (over 125

publications, numerous awards, and also a former president of ICA),

who has also maintained a high degree of fecundity, chairing or co-

chairing 25 doctoral dissertations in organizational communication.

Several of her former students are successful scholars and teachers at

many prominent educational institutions such as Marquette University,

Purdue University, and the University of Texas at Austin.

Continuing down the genealogical line, Rebecca Meisenbach

(University of Missouri) has made significant contributions to the field

(25 publications) and is taking on an active role in the education of

future organizational communication scholars. Meisenbach’s first Ph.D.

student, Disraelly Cruz, is currently at the University of West Florida.

She was recently joined by Amanda Medlock-Klyukovski, Candy

Noltensmeyer, and Marlo Goldstein-Hode in 2014. They represent the

current, but likely temporary, end to the Bormann/Putnam lineage (47

scholars to date) in the field of organizational communication. Two

more of Meisenbach’s Ph.D. students will be completing their degrees

over the next few years. Since 1976, over 290 publications in

organizational communication can be traced to this one small portion

of the overall genealogy of the field (i.e., Putnam, Buzzanell,

Meisenbach). Other lineages, such as those from W. Charles Redding,

whose descendants include Phillip Tompkins, Frederic Jablin, Gerald

Goldhaber, George Cheney, Michael Kramer, Patricia Sias, Kathy

Krone, Connie Bullis, and Greg Larson, can highlight the development

of the discipline through the individuals and relationships from a

perspective not yet captured. Understanding such genealogical lines

and linkages is important because one’s distinctive position in a

network affords benefits in terms of productivity, production patterns,

and diffusion of knowledge24, 25.

A prime example of this type of research utilized data from the

previously mentioned Mathematics Genealogy Project. The mentor-

protégé relationship was examined over a period of 60 years, focusing

Insert Figure 2 Approximately Here

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15358593.2014.944871




8

on whether or not advisees mimic career choices, productivity, and

fecundity. Key findings included a stable average fecundity over time,

and generally higher rates of fecundity among advisees with advisors

with high mentorship fecundity. Similar analysis will be conducted with

the OCGP dataset. The exemplar above appears to anecdotally support

this notion of higher advisee output. Future OCGP work will seek to

answer the following research questions related to genealogical lines:

RQ1: How does an advisee’s network affect that person’s ability

to obtain certain resources (e.g., collaborations, the

advisor’s knowledge network)?

RQ2: How does an advisor’s fecundity affect/influence an

advisee’s fecundity?

RQ3: How does an advisor’s research output affect/influence the

advisee’s productivity?

RQ4: What benefits do advisees reap as a result of their

advisor’s fecundity?

Research and Dissertation Topics

Beyond this knowledge of where we come from, the genealogy

project also seeks to understand the development of the field topically

through the various lineages. Table 2 examines this process utilizing

the Bormann/Putnam lineage from above. From a keyword

perspective, we can see how dissertation research has evolved over

the past several decades. From Bormann’s 1953 rhetorical analysis-

focused research to Cruz’s work on volunteering, work-life balance and

enrichment in 2009, each succeeding generation builds upon and

sometimes expands the work of the previous generation. This can also

been seen by examining keywords from each of the scholars general

research interests of their career.

At the discipline level, looking at keywords from dissertations

and general research interests can be helpful in examining how the

field has grown and diversified, but also in discovering that there are

key issues that are at the heart of our discipline. Table 3 presents a

Insert Table 2 Approximately Here

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15358593.2014.944871




9

look at the most frequently used dissertation keywords among the 127

project participants. Dissertations dates range from 1960 to 2013 (M =

1999). Participants submitted 573 unique keywords describing their

dissertation research. Keywords that were mentioned 5 or more times

by various scholars accounted for a little more than 17% of all

dissertation keywords. The most frequent keyword, “Organizational

Communication”, was mentioned only 15 times, or 11.81% of all of

our participants, but only 2.61% of all of the dissertation keywords

submitted. As our database grows, it will be revealing to see how this

list changes, particularly as we obtain historical data on dissertations

dating back to the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s.

Previous studies have shown that network methods can be a

valuable way to map the complexity of research and identify

knowledge gaps in extant research paradigms26. Accordingly, looking

at the most frequently identified research keywords, this list gives a

detailed look at what is currently going on in the field of organizational

communication. Again, participants provided an enormous variety of

keywords to describe their research (n = 570). Here topics that were

reported five or more times (see Table 4) accounted for just over a

quarter of all keywords submitted (25.79%). Again, “Organizational

Communication” was the most frequently used term, being reported

20 times, or by 15.75% of the respondents.

With the vast number of topics reported, future analysis will

employ NVivo qualitative analysis software to look more deeply into

the development of research ideas over time, the current state of

interdisciplinary work, and the cohesiveness of research within the

discipline27. This analysis will allow us to answer the following research

topic-related questions:

RQ5: What is the identity of organizational communication

topically?

RQ6: How does lineage influence research and dissertation topic

selection?

RQ7: How does lineage affect the development/advancement of

research topics in the field?


http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15358593.2014.944871




10

RQ8: From a topical perspective, what are various

interdisciplinary possibilities that have yet to be

explored?

Collaboration/Co-authorship

As part of the OCGP, we are also investigating the collaborative

nature of our discipline through the examination of co-authorship. Our

investigation of co-authorship is of consequence for a number of

reasons. Previous studies have demonstrated that coauthoring

improves the quality of submissions28, and increases the probability of

acceptance. Furthermore, acceptance and allocation of editorial space

is influenced by the affiliations among authors, editors, and co-

editors, which begins in graduate school and continues in current

employment29, 30, 31. Analyzing the preliminary data we have put

together an initial network map of collaboration. For each scholar, we

initially recorded up to five32 scholars with whom each had co-authored

most frequently. Figures 3-5 show an n-clique exemplar of this data at

its most basic level where n=3. This limit was chosen because an n-

clique greater than three is not very meaningful33. Starting with Stan

Deetz (University of Colorado-Boulder), there are seven first-degree

connections. Within this first degree network, we find the first clique

(Deetz-Egar-Tracy). From this relatively small number, when we can

extend the collaboration network one degree further, an additional 20

scholars join the network. This expansion reveals five additional

network cliques. Pushing the network out one more degree reveals 52

additional network connections and an additional six network cliques.

Overall, 80 scholars are represented in this collaboration exemplar

with no one more than three degrees of separation away from Deetz.

This example represents nearly 20% of all of scholars currently in our

preliminary data set. Understanding these smaller subgroups as well

as the overall collaboration network can help us understand some

aspects of our discipline and the impacts of co-authorship, as noted

earlier (e.g., access to prominent journals, quality of submissions,

probability of acceptance).


Insert Figures 3 through 5 Approximately Here

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15358593.2014.944871




11

Beyond this basic examination of the exemplar collaboration

network, an analysis of actors reveals even more about the individual

scholars and their place in this network. Table 5 examines both

network centrality and betweenness for individuals within 2 degrees of

Deetz. Although the exemplar begins with Deetz in the center, seven

individuals have higher centrality scores relative to Deetz. Similarly,

there are six individuals with higher betweenness scores. In both

cases, Putnam has a higher degree of centrality and betweenness for

the entire sample network. The sample network itself has a relatively

low density (3.32%) indicating a significant degree of diverse

collaborative connections. Examining measures such as those reported

here is consequential as it points to the role that certain prominent

individuals have in connecting relatively isolated parts of a network34.

With the future addition of all co-authors to the collaboration data, the

network characteristics such as betweenness and centrality, and

overall network size and density, will help make further sense of

collaboration impact. With future analyses we seek to answer the

following questions related to collaboration and co-authorship:

RQ9: How does one’s collaboration network affect research

acceptance?

RQ10: Does one’s collaboration network affect access to

prominent journals in the field?

RQ11: Is there a relationship between collaboration and

prominence in the field?

Conclusion and Implications

The preceding highlights what is possible through a network

analysis of organizational communication. First, the genealogy

demonstrates rich history and tracks the movement of, and

connections between, prominent scholars and their advisees. In the

early stages of the development of the field (early 1980s), up-and-

coming researchers learned much through personal connections and

forming relationships, not simply through reading published research


http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15358593.2014.944871




12

(M. Kramer, personal communication). Thus, a genealogical

perspective is apt given the close ties among members of the field.

Second, we will trace how dissertation and ongoing research topics are

evolving. In a simple yet profound way, we will be able to depict the

essence of our discipline through key terms. With the above in mind,

we offer the following implications.

First, our project gives insight into the topics and research areas

comprising our field. One implication of considering topics relates to

the interdisciplinarity of the overall communication field. We feel that

our findings are of interest to anyone outside of organizational

communication, and can provide a way for scholars outside the

subfield to understand the essence of our discipline topically, and who

the prominent authors are and their collaboration patterns, thereby

making it easier to seek new ties and research avenues. Put simply,

we can open up new ways of collaborating and finding one’s place in a

different field that is interdisciplinary at its core. This openness can

affect established scholars in other fields, but also, for instance,

students looking to find their places in graduate studies. A network

understanding of our field topically can be used as a teaching tool to

discuss established and current hot topics, and also highlight topics

that have remained dormant for some time. Another potential utility of

these data is by looking at the types of questions we seek to answer

with our scholarship. Although we all have our own niche, topical foci,

and lenses through which we conduct our research, as a practical

discipline35 we should reflect, for instance, on broad calls for

scholarship that address large-scale impacts of communication

research. Such impact aligns with concerns of other scholars36 who

have reviewed our history as a field and challenge us to consider

carefully the utility of our research to people in actual organizations.

To add a further example, our keyword results reveal that

“organization” was low on the commonly-cited list. This finding is

interesting given efforts to question and engage what constitutes

“organization” in the 21st century37.

Second, this effort contributes to other projects that offer

histories of their field. As W. Charles Redding38 and more recent

reviews39 remind us, such disciplinary reflections are important as

fields seek to understand their identities vis-à-vis the society in which

they operate. To the already excellent histories available, we offer a

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15358593.2014.944871




13

network-based genealogical history. Importantly, we will be able to

provide recognition to key scholars (both well-known and otherwise)

and their contributions to our discipline. Third, it gives us nuanced

ways of examining influence, both in terms of people and research

areas.

Having provided the preceding implications, we close by noting

overarching research questions to guide future inquiry. First, what do

the combined networks (i.e., genealogy and collaboration) tell us

about the discipline? Using Quadratic Assignment Procedure (QAP) will

allow us to analyze the multiplex of overlapping collaborator, advisor,

and topic networks40 to add nuance to our understanding of scholarly

productivity and the overall development of the discipline. Second, and

related, what are some of the most influential collaborations, and,

practically speaking, are there certain factors that influence the

success of collaboration connections? Finally, how does the analysis of

our discipline relate to findings from other fields such as the ones

mentioned in this essay (e.g., mathematics, international relations,

marketing)? Such comparisons can be helpful as they allow us to learn

lessons from established fields, and measure the advancement of our

discipline.

This essay joins in the scholarly conversation that traces the

field of organizational communication at an important time in the

history of the overall field of communication. Our aim is to contribute

to a healthy body of research that captures the growth of our field

since its inception in the 1940s-1950s. By approaching history via

network methods, we offer scholars and students a picture that is

unseen thus far. As the larger Organizational Communication

Genealogy Project continues to evolve and take shape, we look

forward to offering further insight to this fully established and vibrant

field.

FIGURE 1 EARLY CURRICULUM VITAE FOR FREDRIC M. JABLIN

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15358593.2014.944871




14

NOTE: – Courtesy of The University of Texas at Austin, Moody College of

Communication.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15358593.2014.944871




15

FIGURE 2 GENEALOGY NETWORK DIAGRAM EXEMPLAR

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15358593.2014.944871




16

FIGURE 3 RESEARCH COLLABORATION NETWORK EXEMPLAR – STAN DEETZ (N-

CLIQUE, N=1)


CLIQUE, N=2)

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15358593.2014.944871




17


CLIQUE, N=3)

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15358593.2014.944871




18

TABLE 1 KEY NETWORK ANALYSIS MEASURES AND TERMS19

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15358593.2014.944871




19

TABLE 2 EXEMPLAR OF KEYWORD HISTORY THROUGH PH.D. ADVISOR-ADVISEE

GENEALOGY

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15358593.2014.944871




20

TABLE 3 MOST FREQUENTLY USED DISSERTATION KEYWORDS

NOTE. – List represents 17.10% of all dissertation keywords (N=573) used

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15358593.2014.944871




21

TABLE 4 MOST FREQUENTLY USED RESEARCH KEYWORDS

NOTE. – List represents 25.79% of all keywords (N=570) used.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15358593.2014.944871




22

TABLE 5 PROPERTIES OF RESEARCH COLLABORATION NETWORK EXEMPLAR

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15358593.2014.944871




23

Table 5 Continued

NOTE. – Example Network: N=80, Possible Connections=3160, Existing

Connections=105, Network Density = 3.32%

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15358593.2014.944871




24

Notes:

1 See, for example, Patrice Buzzanell and Cynthia Stohl, “The Redding

Tradition of Organizational Communication Scholarship: W. Charles

Redding and His Legacy,” Communication Studies 50 (1999): 324-336.

2 See, for example, Gail T. Fairhurst, Discursive Leadership: In Conversation

with Leadership Psychology (Los Angeles: Sage, 2007); Gail T.

Fairhurst and Linda L. Putnam, “Organizations as Discursive

Constructions,” Communication Theory 14 (2004): 5-26.

3 Linda L. Putnam and Anne Nicotera, Building Theories of Organization: The

Constitutive Role of Communication (New York: Routledge, 2009).

4 Karen Lee Ashcraft, Timothy R. Kuhn, and Francois Cooren, “Constitutional

Amendments: ‘Materializing’ Organizational Communication,” The

Academy of Management Annals 3 (2009): 1-64; Bruno Latour,

Reassembling the Social: An Introduction to Actor-Network Theory

(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007).

5 See, for example, Ashcraft, Kuhn, and Cooren, “Constitutional

Amendments”, 1-64; Sarah B. Feldner and Scott C. D’Urso, “Threads

of Intersection and Distinction: Joining an Ongoing Conversation within

Organizational Communication Research,” Communication Research

Trends 29 (2010): 3-28; Dennis K. Mumby and Cynthia Stohl,

“Disciplining Organizational Communication Studies,” Management

Communication Quarterly 10 (1996): 50-72; David Rooney, Bernard

McKenna, and James R. Barker, “History of Ideas in Management

Communication Quarterly,” Management Communication Quarterly 25

(2011): 583-611; James R. Taylor, Andrew J. Flanagin, G. Cheney,

and David R. Seibold, “Organizational Communication Research: Key

Moments, Central Concerns, and Future Challenges,” in

Communication Yearbook, ed. W. B. Gudykunst (Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage, 2001), 99-137.

6 Patrice M. Buzzanell, Jeremy P. Fyke, and Robyn V. Remke. 2014.

“Professionalising Organizational Communication Discourses,

Materialities, and Trends. In The Routledge Handbook of Language and

Professional Communication, ed. V. Bhatia and S. Bremner (New York:

Routledge), 207-219.

7 Dennis K. Mumby, and Linda L. Putnam, eds. 2014. The Sage Handbook of

Organizational Communication (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

8 Charles W. Redding, “Stumbling Toward Identity: The Emergence of

Organizational Communication as a Field of Study,” in Organizational

Communication: Traditional Themes and New Directions, ed. R.D.

McPhee and P.K. Tompkins (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1985), 15-54.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15358593.2014.944871




25

9 See, for example, Francisco J. Acedo et al., “Co-Authorship in Management

and Organizational Studies: An Empirical and Network Analysis,”

Journal of Management Studies 43 (2006): 957-983.

10 Katherine I. Miller, “A Stroll Down Memory Lane (In Flip Flops),”

Management Communication Quarterly 18 (2005): 612-617.

11 Peter R. Monge and Noshir S. Contractor, Theories of Communication

Networks, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003).

12 See, for review, Alex M. Susskind, Donald F. Schwartz, William D. Richards,

and David Johnson, “Evolution and Diffusion of the Michigan State

University Research Tradition of Organizational Communication

Network Research,” Communication Studies 54 (2005): 397-418.

13 Ingrid Ticken-Boon van Ostade, “Social Network Analysis and the History of

English,” European Journal of English Studies 4 (2000): 211-216.

14 Peter M. Kristensen, “Dividing Discipline: Structures of Communication in

International Relations,” International Studies Review 14 (2012): 32-

50.

15 Hans Baumgartner and Rik Pieters, “The Structural Influence of Marketing

Journals: A Citation Analysis of the Discipline and Its Subareas Over

Time,” Journal of Marketing 67 (2003): 123-139.

16 Acedo et al, “Co-Authorship in Management and Organization Studies,”

957-983.

17 Ibid.

18 Kristensen, “Dividing Discipline,” 32-50.

19 Adapted from Monge and Contractor, “Theories of Communication

Networks.”; Hanneman, Robert A. & Mark Riddle. 2005. Introduction

to Social Network Method. Riverside, CA: University of California,

Riverside; Prell, Christina. 2012. Social Network Analysis: History,

Theory, and Methodology. London: Sage.

20 Borgatti, Stephen P., Everett, Martin G. and Linton C. Freeman. 2002.

Ucinet 6 for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis. Harvard,

MA: Analytic Technologies.

21 Borgatti, Stephen P., 2002. NetDraw Software for Network Visualization.

Analytic Technologies: Lexington, KY.

22 Miller, “Stroll Down Memory Lane,” 616. 23 R. Dean Malmgren, Julio M. Ottino, and Luis A. Nunes Amaral, “The Role of

Mentorship in Protégé Performance,” Nature 465 (2010): 622-626.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15358593.2014.944871




26

24 Michael J. Piette and Kevin L. Ross, “A Study of the Publication of Scholarly

Output in Economics Journals,” Eastern Economic Journal 18 (1992):

429-436.

25 Acedo et al., “Co-Authorship in Management and Organization Studies,”

957-983.

Lidwien van de Wijngaert, Harry Bouwman, and Noshir Contractor, “A

Network Approach Toward Literature Review,” Quality & Quantity 48

(2014): 623-643.

27 Kristensen, “Dividing Discipline,” 32-50.

28 David N. Laband and Robert D. Tollison, “Intellectual Collaboration,” Journal

of Political Economy 108 (2000): 632-662.


957-983.

30 David N. Laband, “Publishing Favoritism: A Critique of Department Ratings

Based on Quantitative Publishing Performance,” Southern Economic

Journal 52 (1985): 510-515.

31 Piette and Ross, “A Study of Publication of Scholarship Output,” 429-436.

32 The survey only asked for the top five most frequent co-authors. Current

data collection of recent CVs allows us to record more co-authors for

each scholar. Ultimately, this affords a more complete network, which

is important methodologically. Take, for example, Cynthia Stohl. She

has co-authored with 58 individuals as of March 2013. Her top five

most frequent does not include Kasey Walker, twice a Stohl publication

co-author, but Walker’s list includes Stohl. This process allows for

more than five network connections for any one individual, and in the

case of Stohl, it results in an additional 52 connections.

33 Prell, Social Network Analysis.


957-983.

35 Kevin J. Barge, “Practical Theory as Mapping, Engaged Reflection, and

Transformative Practice,” Communication Theory 11 (2001): 5-13.

36 Elizabeth Jones, Burnadette Watson, John Gardner, and Cindy Gallois,

“Organizational Communication: Challenges for the New Century,”

Journal of Communication 54 (2004): 722- 750.

37 Craig R. Scott, Anonymous Agencies, Backstreet Businesses and Covert

Collectives: Rethinking Organizations in the 21st Century (Stanford,

CA: Stanford Business Books).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15358593.2014.944871




27

38 Redding, “Stumbling Toward Identity,” 15-54.

39 Feldner and D’Urso, “Threads of Intersection and Distinction,” 3-28.

40 We thank one anonymous reviewer for this specific suggestion.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15358593.2014.944871


Exploring Organizational Communication (Micro) History ...

Documents

Transcript of Exploring Organizational Communication (Micro) History ...